KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - What happened to PEP? Getting annoyed! Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:26 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4415
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 733 times
Elementary Penguin wrote:
1:1 compliance and 250,000 titles works out to 16,667 Spotlight discs :lol: :roll: :P

Your math is a bit off.... Not everything was on a Spotlight Series disc. You forget to take into account the other series that SC has/had that were multiplex (consisting of only 8 songs (twice) per disc as vs the Spotlight series that consisted of 15 songs). :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt:


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:17 pm
Posts: 188
Location: Westminster, CO
Been Liked: 45 times
It is a KJ/DJ surely. The web address for email is in Canada. I do not think SC/PEP/SCE has moved anywhere from Pineville or Dallas/Richardson/Plano. It's logos do not resemble anything from Kurt S. to me.

Also, under comments on the site he is ID'd as Rod Scott.

_________________
You can never argue with a crazy mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind ----B. Joel
I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence ---- E.A. Poe
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity ----E.A. Poe
I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference! ----A. Einstein
Double bubble, toil and trouble ----W. Shakespeare & Walt Disney
I hate it when I get on FaceBook ----Me

I'm just sayin'.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 286
Been Liked: 114 times
cueball wrote:
Elementary Penguin wrote:
1:1 compliance and 250,000 titles works out to 16,667 Spotlight discs :lol: :roll: :P

Your math is a bit off.... Not everything was on a Spotlight Series disc. You forget to take into account the other series that SC has/had that were multiplex (consisting of only 8 songs (twice) per disc as vs the Spotlight series that consisted of 15 songs). :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt: :ppfftt:

Now now, I did specifically say "Spotlights" so I limited this difficult math to dividing once by 15. True though, I utterly failed to correct for duplicates (triplicates? quadlicates? is that even a word?)

The Star Series discs must comprise Rig 2 8)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:59 am 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:14 am
Posts: 56
Location: SFL
Been Liked: 3 times
PEP
PREDATORY ENTERTAINMENT PIRATES
1. Soundchoice went out of biz, after appelate judges laughed at them.
2. PEP a group of mostly lawyers bought trademark and catalog rights
3. PEP sold catalog to Stingray.

When real lawyers got involved defending SC cases, discovery revealed almost no mechanical licenses obtained and no royalties to original publishers and artists paid.

So the biggest PIRATE was SC.

Now all PEP is trying to sue over is use of the SC TM when a file loads.

Cases get tossed as soon as defendant raises a few legal issues.

A. No real harm to PEP when their TM shows it's fair use and you don't need permission.
B. They lost media shifting argument.
C. Their suits are viewed as frivolous and double dipping.
D. Proper venue for such IP actions is WIPO not local courts.

Just ask any artist if they ever got one cent from SC or PEP.

I hear a huge class action is forming against PEP by artists.

The only legitimate company to ever pay artist royalties on what SC created is YouTube.

Support the artists stream YouTube.

Pretty much every bar in USA pays artists to use music through ASCAP so as an artist I'm stating publicly use YT streams then the artists will see some royalties.

However, artists are already being paid by ASCAP for music DJs and KJ's use.

_________________
Lead Singer of Rex Luciferius just Google me I'm a public figure.

Or search Spotify - iTunes - Amazon - SoundCloud - ReverbNation


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 am
Posts: 238
Been Liked: 195 times
I am the last person who will defend PEP. But at the same time, your statements are full of misrepresentations.

1. SC didn't go out of business because appellate judges laughed at them. Surely you are joking.
2. Show me the proof that a group of lawyers joined PEP to buy any trademarks. Good luck with that.
3. SC sold the catalog to Stingray long before PEP was started.

Almost no publishing paid? Seriously? I am not saying that SC didn't have an odd number of tracks that perhaps were not granted licenses out of 14,000. I am not saying that they didn't settle with publishers because of such claims. But your statement is false and misleading. Artists are paid by their publishers per agreements they have and that would be no different from SC.

Class action suit against PEP by artists? I will wait with my popcorn to see that. The only legitimate company to pay artists from SC catalog is Youtube...PLEASE.... I guess you don't consider the money paid by stingray who have now owned the catalog for years and uses it for several digital outlets. I guess they are scamming artists too right?

You are advising people to use Youtube in ways that violate their terms of service? Really? I have never seen you post here and have no idea where you get your information. But this forum and others already have enough reasons to dislike PEP/SC and they are based on facts, not this kind of BS.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:25 am 
Online
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 1695
Images: 0
Been Liked: 559 times
Rexxx wrote:
PEP
PREDATORY ENTERTAINMENT PIRATES
1. Soundchoice went out of biz, after appelate judges laughed at them.
2. PEP a group of mostly lawyers bought trademark and catalog rights
3. PEP sold catalog to Stingray.

When real lawyers got involved defending SC cases, discovery revealed almost no mechanical licenses obtained and no royalties to original publishers and artists paid.

So the biggest PIRATE was SC.

Now all PEP is trying to sue over is use of the SC TM when a file loads.

Cases get tossed as soon as defendant raises a few legal issues.

A. No real harm to PEP when their TM shows it's fair use and you don't need permission.
B. They lost media shifting argument.
C. Their suits are viewed as frivolous and double dipping.
D. Proper venue for such IP actions is WIPO not local courts.

Just ask any artist if they ever got one cent from SC or PEP.

I hear a huge class action is forming against PEP by artists.

The only legitimate company to ever pay artist royalties on what SC created is YouTube.

Support the artists stream YouTube.

Pretty much every bar in USA pays artists to use music through ASCAP so as an artist I'm stating publicly use YT streams then the artists will see some royalties.

However, artists are already being paid by ASCAP for music DJs and KJ's use.


:headscratch: :headscratch: Don't Bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me!

_________________
When a singer truly feels and experiences what the music is all about, the words will automatically ring true.
Monserrat Cabal


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:49 am
Posts: 458
Been Liked: 112 times
While YouTube streams DO pay out royalties... those videos need to be played millions of times to generate any type of income.

From there, I don't know how the revenue would be distributed between the person who made the karaoke version of a song, and the artist who created the song.

The YouTube TOS basically prohibits streaming by people who are using it to generate revenue, so the only place YouTube karaoke streams can be played is at home.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:44 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4267
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 196 times
Again what happens if say the bar owner to save money decides not to pay the fee for speeding up the data stream when net neutrality goes the way of the dodo bird?
You Tube hosts end up looking stupid as song after song buffers in the middle of playing. Gee owning legal copies of songs whether or not the manufacturers actually paid for the rights is looking better all the time.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:14 am
Posts: 56
Location: SFL
Been Liked: 3 times
Toastedmuffin wrote:
While YouTube streams DO pay out royalties... those videos need to be played millions of times to generate any type of income.

From there, I don't know how the revenue would be distributed between the person who made the karaoke version of a song, and the artist who created the song.

The YouTube TOS basically prohibits streaming by people who are using it to generate revenue, so the only place YouTube karaoke streams can be played is at home.


Wrong

They have no public stream caveat

The K producers get nothing, that's not how royalties work, the writers or pubs that sold rights to the work for k CDs get paid by ASCAP. The k pub is entitled to nothing it's not their work the lyrics and notes.

YT allows it to promote YT

They only don't is to download for commercial use, a stream is 100% legal since the venue has a ASCAP license

Seems most here don't understand pep lawsuits they went after shifted media and use of the SC name

The judges ruled shifted ok

Then there was no harm showing the name

They lost all wins that got appealed

Anyway there's nothing about live streams being illegal

There's nothing too in digital act as long as venue has ASCAP
In law there's a thing called double dipping

ASCAP pays the real rights owners

SC never owned the music period

It's why there's YT stream services popping up

_________________
Lead Singer of Rex Luciferius just Google me I'm a public figure.

Or search Spotify - iTunes - Amazon - SoundCloud - ReverbNation


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3820
Images: 0
Been Liked: 390 times
Rexxx wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
While YouTube streams DO pay out royalties... those videos need to be played millions of times to generate any type of income.

From there, I don't know how the revenue would be distributed between the person who made the karaoke version of a song, and the artist who created the song.

The YouTube TOS basically prohibits streaming by people who are using it to generate revenue, so the only place YouTube karaoke streams can be played is at home.


Wrong

They have no public stream caveat

The K producers get nothing, that's not how royalties work, the writers or pubs that sold rights to the work for k CDs get paid by ASCAP. The k pub is entitled to nothing it's not their work the lyrics and notes.

YT allows it to promote YT

They only don't is to download for commercial use, a stream is 100% legal since the venue has a ASCAP license

Seems most here don't understand pep lawsuits they went after shifted media and use of the SC name

The judges ruled shifted ok

Then there was no harm showing the name

They lost all wins that got appealed

Anyway there's nothing about live streams being illegal

There's nothing too in digital act as long as venue has ASCAP
In law there's a thing called double dipping

ASCAP pays the real rights owners

SC never owned the music period

It's why there's YT stream services popping up
So, are you trying to say that YouTube karaoke is fine and dandy to use in bars??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 4267
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 196 times
Rexxx wrote:
Toastedmuffin wrote:
While YouTube streams DO pay out royalties... those videos need to be played millions of times to generate any type of income.

From there, I don't know how the revenue would be distributed between the person who made the karaoke version of a song, and the artist who created the song.

The YouTube TOS basically prohibits streaming by people who are using it to generate revenue, so the only place YouTube karaoke streams can be played is at home.


Wrong

They have no public stream caveat

The K producers get nothing, that's not how royalties work, the writers or pubs that sold rights to the work for k CDs get paid by ASCAP. The k pub is entitled to nothing it's not their work the lyrics and notes.

YT allows it to promote YT

They only don't is to download for commercial use, a stream is 100% legal since the venue has a ASCAP license

Seems most here don't understand pep lawsuits they went after shifted media and use of the SC name

The judges ruled shifted ok

Then there was no harm showing the name

They lost all wins that got appealed

Anyway there's nothing about live streams being illegal

There's nothing too in digital act as long as venue has ASCAP
In law there's a thing called double dipping

ASCAP pays the real rights owners

SC never owned the music period

It's why there's YT stream services popping up

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Maybe you will end up like the people in Jamestown. The Karaoke producers who paid for the rights to make the karaoke work's product is considered a separate product when they rerecorded it and are due compensation for their part of the recording just like even though Michael Bolton had to pay for the rights to rerecord Georgia On My Mind still gets to make money off it so do Karaoke producers. You Tube takes that away from them. If their products are allowed to remain on YouTube then the Karaoke producers deserve to be compensated for their use. Those that are only available on YouTube, I personally don't have any problem with. But all the other brands that are freely up on You Tube need to either get paid for it or You Tube should just take them down
Besides I have seen You Tube shows and they give karaoke a very bad name. Personally, I could run a much smoother professional looking show if I was back using discs with having to move a webbrowser to the singer's screen and change it to full screen and then take it out of full screen so you can do it again for the next song. Also ASCAPP and all the other agencies don't cover the actual sync license.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 388
Been Liked: 230 times
Okay so some of this is getting in deep licensing waters and over my head, but just to clear up a few misunderstandings. ASCAP, BMI & SESAC are Publishing Rights Organizations or PRO for short. PROs collect royalties for the rights owners of musical compositions only. The record label does not get any compensation for its "mastering rights" or sound recordings in a public performance. A "Sync" license is a colloquial publishing term used to describe two separate works containing two separate copyrights (i.e. a video and a musical composition) combined or "synced" into a single work. The term "Sync" license is just an industry descriptive way of referring to these aforementioned negotiated licenses (do not qualify under compulsory provision) but they are not codified in the copyright code as such. Said differently, you won't find the word "sync" license anywhere in the copyright code.

When karaoke companies secure a "sync" license from a publisher or rights holder, the license only covers recording (gray area here) and distribution of the musical composition and does not include public performance rights, which is why often times you'll see the disclaimer "Not For Public Performance" printed on the CD.

Streaming is relatively new so there are various arrangements depending on the organization. For example YouTube does pay a royalty to both the owner of the composition and the sound recording. It starts to get complicated from there, and I don't know the finer legal points when it comes to streaming content, subsequently the following is mostly just my opinion. It's my guess that streaming YouTube videos could possibly be considered an infringement even if the PRO fees have been paid. The reason I'm not convinced that it's totally legal is because in most of the karaoke streams that I've seen, the content is not uploaded by the karaoke label. For example, I've seen my own products ripped and uploaded to YouTube without my permission, that's illegal. I've also seen my music with re-authored lyric displays, which would be illegal, and I've also seen my content superimposed on videos, again this is illegal. In cases such as this, the KJ downloading or streaming the content is infringing on the copyrights of the karaoke label, and is in violation of YouTube's terms of service. There would also be an exposure of a contributory or vicarious infringement liability to the venue especially if the venue is providing the KJ with an internet connection while streaming illegal content.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:11 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 8:49 pm
Posts: 288
Been Liked: 47 times
DannyG2006 wrote:
Also ASCAPP and all the other agencies don't cover the actual sync license.


YEP!
Not all venues have ASCAP, BMI, Sesac licenses either. Many only have one or two.
Don't assume the venue is covered.
If they have a Jukebox, the jukebox supplier is licensed for material played on the jukebox only
but the venue itself may not be licensed at all. Some places get around the three licenses
by having a jukebox service.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak" :)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:14 am
Posts: 56
Location: SFL
Been Liked: 3 times
Most venues have a public play license and in USA ASCAP is the vast majority.

Only thing SC paid for were some mechanical licenses to use for 1 thing selling CDs.

Big issue if they got enough licences then real big deal if they paid on units sold.

The music is and ways will be owned by original artists n original publishers.

SC has no extended rights. If a person owns the CD and shifts media fine.

He puts on YT 100% legal, then rights shift back to original owners YT pays them not SC

SC made their money on CDs now the artists who created lyrics and music get paid from shifted plays.

Now, just research the various YT streamers now all tied to DJ software.

So all DJ SW is recognizing that is future.

Bottom line anything on YT is now basically public domain any one can stream it.

If it's a public venue their public music license covers it.

Stream

'nuff said

_________________
Lead Singer of Rex Luciferius just Google me I'm a public figure.

Or search Spotify - iTunes - Amazon - SoundCloud - ReverbNation


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:14 am
Posts: 56
Location: SFL
Been Liked: 3 times
Oh

U use your phone with hotspot

It's usually better than business soeeds

_________________
Lead Singer of Rex Luciferius just Google me I'm a public figure.

Or search Spotify - iTunes - Amazon - SoundCloud - ReverbNation


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 388
Been Liked: 230 times
Sorry there Rexxx but your are grossly misinformed. You don't seem to understand that every recording of a cover song is accompanied by two separate copyrights, one for the musical composition and the other for the sound recording. If you've purchased one of my PHM discs and uploaded any of its content to YouTube you are infringing on my copyright of the sound recording. It is not 100% legal as you claim but actually is 100% ILLEGAL!!! I certainly have no legal standing to sue you for infringing on the copyrights of the musical composition, but I do have standing to sue you for infringing on MY sound recording. Make no mistake about it, if you upload any song to YouTube without the permission of the rights holders you are infringing on the copyrights of the musical composition AND the sound recording. When you purchase any sound recording whether it's the original recording, or a sound-a-like, etc. that purchase did not include the right for you to sell, donate, or otherwise distribute in ANY manner "copies" of that sound recording. The law is quite clear on this matter, it's not up for debate.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 5:27 pm
Posts: 146
Images: 0
Location: Mobile al.
Been Liked: 34 times
RLC wrote:
Rexxx wrote:
PEP
PREDATORY ENTERTAINMENT PIRATES
1. Soundchoice went out of biz, after appelate judges laughed at them.
2. PEP a group of mostly lawyers bought trademark and catalog rights
3. PEP sold catalog to Stingray.

When real lawyers got involved defending SC cases, discovery revealed almost no mechanical licenses obtained and no royalties to original publishers and artists paid.

So the biggest PIRATE was SC.

Now all PEP is trying to sue over is use of the SC TM when a file loads.

Cases get tossed as soon as defendant raises a few legal issues.

A. No real harm to PEP when their TM shows it's fair use and you don't need permission.
B. They lost media shifting argument.
C. Their suits are viewed as frivolous and double dipping.
D. Proper venue for such IP actions is WIPO not local courts.

Just ask any artist if they ever got one cent from SC or PEP.

I hear a huge class action is forming against PEP by artists.

The only legitimate company to ever pay artist royalties on what SC created is YouTube.

Support the artists stream YouTube.

Pretty much every bar in USA pays artists to use music through ASCAP so as an artist I'm stating publicly use YT streams then the artists will see some royalties.

However, artists are already being paid by ASCAP for music DJs and KJ's use.


:headscratch: :headscratch: Don't Bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me!


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:14 am
Posts: 56
Location: SFL
Been Liked: 3 times
Bastiat wrote:
Sorry there Rexxx but your are grossly misinformed. You don't seem to understand that every recording of a cover song is accompanied by two separate copyrights, one for the musical composition and the other for the sound recording. If you've purchased one of my PHM discs and uploaded any of its content to YouTube you are infringing on my copyright of the sound recording. It is not 100% legal as you claim but actually is 100% ILLEGAL!!! I certainly have no legal standing to sue you for infringing on the copyrights of the musical composition, but I do have standing to sue you for infringing on MY sound recording. Make no mistake about it, if you upload any song to YouTube without the permission of the rights holders you are infringing on the copyrights of the musical composition AND the sound recording. When you purchase any sound recording whether it's the original recording, or a sound-a-like, etc. that purchase did not include the right for you to sell, donate, or otherwise distribute in ANY manner "copies" of that sound recording. The law is quite clear on this matter, it's not up for debate.


Dude, I'm an ORIGINAL ARTIST AND PUBLISHER, I don't know who you are or what PHM is.

Is PHM a karaoke publisher?

I'll assume it is.

You acquire a BS mechanic license from a guy like me. The original artist or publisher.

You have no rights, other than to use my property to make a recording and sell it, NO RIGHTS to tell people what the can do with MY PROPERTY.

So I hope you are a Karaoke publisher maybe you can now understand you have NO RIGHTS to say boo about what anyone does with your karaoke version of my art they want.

Karaoke Publishers are nobodies, they buy mechanical licenses to copy an artists work, and have NO CONTROL over what the public then does. ZERO

Now people make YouTube videos all day using other artists property, YT has algorithms they flag the upload and pay the artists.

If they didn't do that YT would have been put out of biz long ago.

So what are you a karaoke publisher?

I hope you pay royalties to the artists.

If you think you are gonna be another sound choice suing kjs go ahead.

You'll be put out of biz like SC.

NOTE
Ok the guy is a quasi karaoke publisher.
He is selling music with software to add lyrics. Here he says you can't use his music.
Lol

It's not his music it's the original artists music.

If someone used your program which I would never do as an original artist, but if I did the upload to YT would pay the artist not you.

You have no rights to anything it belongs to original artists.

There is no future in karaoke publishing.

The future of music publishing is upside down due to YT and other streamers now.

Anyway, no matter what you claim everything belongs to the artists not you.

_________________
Lead Singer of Rex Luciferius just Google me I'm a public figure.

Or search Spotify - iTunes - Amazon - SoundCloud - ReverbNation


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3820
Images: 0
Been Liked: 390 times
So Rexxx, who ARE you?? Have we heard of you, and your music??

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:01 am 
Offline
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am
Posts: 1884
Been Liked: 401 times
Smoothedge69 wrote:
So Rexxx, who ARE you?? Have we heard of you, and your music??


There is a link of sorts in the mic cup thread over at the lounge. I don't think its a gag site but I sure hope for his sake that it is. That site appears to be a lot of time and effort into something destined for a cliff dive.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech